US Presidential Election 2020

briany

spacecoyote wrote: »

A lot of talk currently about the risk of an independent running on a centrist democratic style ticket if the dems run someone deemed to be too far to the left.

Some of the thinking appears to be that the rich dem types are enjoying their trump tax cut, and would ultimately rather risk 4 more years of trump than have someone too far left come in & look to introduce a high end wealth tax.

So could be a risk of a dilution of the dem voting group if there is a dem candidate & an independent dem centrist running, which would massively improve Trumps odds.

Jesse Ventura, I believe, left his previous political office with a surplus in the budget. I don't think he's a big tax & spend guy. His big political platforms have been on things like further legalisation of marijuana and alternative energies. There are other ways to be left wing without saying to tax more. That must be the biggest fallacy going. All Bernie or Ventura have to ask is, "Why have we all the money for the bombs, but not enough for university?"

batgoat

briany wrote: »

Jesse Ventura, I believe, left his previous political office with a surplus in the budget. I don't think he's a big tax & spend guy. His big political platforms have been on things like further legalisation of marijuana and alternative energies. There are other ways to be left wing without saying to tax more. That must be the biggest fallacy going. All Bernie or Ventura have to ask is, "Why have we all the money for the bombs, but not enough for university?"

I honestly don't think a person known for conspiracy theories and appearing on Alex Jones is an improvement upon the present. At the best I see such an independent sucking up a handful of votes from dems and GOP.

briany

batgoat wrote: »

I honestly don't think a person known for conspiracy theories and appearing on Alex Jones is an improvement upon the present. At the best I see such an independent sucking up a handful of votes from dems and GOP.

It probably wouldn't be Ventura, but I would say that the Democrats needs someone like him who can hit back at Trump, who can think on his feet, has a bit of street cred and genuinely believes in what he/she is saying. In my opinion Jesse Ventura has those types of qualities, and it's not that hosting a conspiracy TV show would harm his chances (not these days, anyway. Conspiracies have kind of gone mainstream), it's that his profile just isn't high enough.

Joe Biden, on the other hand, while having lots of political experience, is just another old white guy with nothing interesting or engaging to say.

Manic Moran

Warren's candidacy just suffered another PR setback, given the new evidence that she actively claimed she was American Indian under a registration card for the Texas Bar.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/elizabeth-warren-native-american/index.html

Rjd2

With the STOU and what is happening in Virginia (lunacy) and the usual Trump craziness, at least its getting somewhat buried for now.
Gabbard is going to lead with attacking the wars overseas and spotlighting how dire they have been for the US.
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1092977776066527232

Been the most vocal on Venezuela, while the rest have been very timid, Harris I think has said nothing on it which is unacceptable for a candidate who is running from the left. Gabbard getting the Russian smears but sadly that was to be expected. She is not going to win, but she will boil a lot of piss on both sides and hopefully start a conversation about Americas oversea "exceptionalism".

In other stories, O Rourke seems to be stalling.

Kloub will likely announce this week if she run, I know she is not the most exciting, but looking at the area of the country where she is formidable, she'd massacre Trump in a one v one. Obviously got to get past the other 249 Dems running firstly though.

Sad Professor

Very impressed with Gabbard. Standing up to all the liberal interventionist hawks in the US media can't be easy. She's not even anti-war like some on the left are claiming, more of a realist, but I guess in the US they are the same thing.

pixelburp

Trevor Noah made an interesting observation about one key element he reckoned propelled Trump to the forefront of the GOP Primaries; his soundbites & reductionism may be coming back to haunt him now, but there were nearly 20 candidates running to be the Rep. nomination - all those glib "lock her up", "build the wall" catchphrases made his candidature simple & stand out, in comparison with (say) Marco Rubio talking for 5 minutes with generic Republican blather.

If the Democrat campaign becomes as overcrowded as that 2015 variant, the winner will likely be the one who can reduce their talking points to catch-phrases and slogans the electorate can latch onto. Obviously it speaks volumes about where US public discourse finds itself these days, but I'm inclined to agree with Noah and suspect this may reflect on the Democrat's own process.

Sad Professor

pixelburp wrote: »

Trevor Noah made an interesting observation about one key element he reckoned propelled Trump to the forefront of the GOP Primaries; his soundbites & reductionism may be coming back to haunt him now, but there were nearly 20 candidates running to be the Rep. nomination - all those glib "lock her up", "build the wall" catchphrases made his candidature simple & stand out, in comparison with (say) Marco Rubio talking for 5 minutes with generic Republican blather.

If the Democrat campaign becomes as overcrowded as that 2015 variant, the winner will likely be the one who can reduce their talking points to catch-phrases and slogans the electorate can latch onto. Obviously it speaks volumes about where US public discourse finds itself these days, but I'm inclined to agree with Noah and suspect this may reflect on the Democrat's own process.

How about "soak the rich"? :pac:

Seriously though it probably depends on the issue and the audience. I was reading some research the other day which shows socially liberal politicians tend to use more complex language and conservatives use simpler, more communicative language. It suggests that on social issues the respective audiences respond very well to these strategies.

On economic issues however it seems most Americans respond very well to attacks on the rich, a strategy that Hilary more or less abandoned in favour of identity/cultural issues. I mean, the left in Ireland regularly attack Leo as privileged because he came from an upper-middle class background. Trump was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and Hilary felt his sexism and racism was the bigger problem.

Like Bill Clinton's campaign strategist used to say, "It's the economy, stupid". But the Dems seem to have forgotten this and think they can beat the Republicans at their own game, but I don't think they can. And I'm not sure they've learned this lesson yet.

Quin_Dub

When it gets to the real campaigning though , what does Trump actually campaign on?

Last time round it was "Build the Wall" , "Drain the Swamp" & "Lock her up!" along with general petty name calling

Beyond the personal attacks , what can he actually campaign on for 2020?

He can't claim to be "draining the swamp" as there will be 3+ years of unavoidable evidence to the contrary.

He can't talk about "locking her up" as Hilary isn't running.

If he's still trying to raise a chant of "Build that wall" in 12-18 months time he has a major problem.

So , again beyond "Stupid Joe Biden" or "Pocahontas" or whatever stupid , infantile names he comes up with for whoever are the Democrat nominees , What does he have to put forward??

pixelburp

Quin_Dub wrote: »

When it gets to the real campaigning though , what does Trump actually campaign on?

Last time round it was "Build the Wall" , "Drain the Swamp" & "Lock her up!" along with general petty name calling

Beyond the personal attacks , what can he actually campaign on for 2020?

He can't claim to be "draining the swamp" as there will be 3+ years of unavoidable evidence to the contrary.

He can't talk about "locking her up" as Hilary isn't running.

If he's still trying to raise a chant of "Build that wall" in 12-18 months time he has a major problem.

So , again beyond "Stupid Joe Biden" or "Pocahontas" or whatever stupid , infantile names he comes up with for whoever are the Democrat nominees , What does he have to put forward??

Yup, this was something I said before; Trump won't be the plucky, boisterous outsider anymore & without the ability to promise everything & anything, he may struggle against a canny opponent. Of the sundry catchphrases shouted across the 2016 campaign, almost none of them have come to pass - it may explain why he has gone into override trying to get The Wall belatedly started.

This is literally uncharted territory for him personally too: I doubt Trump has ever had his job or position on the line before - maybe the closest could be the times banks have declined him for loans? - or indeed had his actions so thoroughly, aggressively analysed in public either. 2020 will be fascinating, not least because it may yield a new side to Trumps increasingly erratic temperament.

rossie1977

Quin_Dub wrote: »

So , again beyond "Stupid Joe Biden" or "Pocahontas" or whatever stupid , infantile names he comes up with for whoever are the Democrat nominees , What does he have to put forward??

SOTU was basically a campaign speech

* Economy is best ever..if you elect my opponent it will fall
* Peace in middle east, North Korea..if you elect my opponent they will go to war
* Socialism is terrible..elect my opponent and country will become Venezuela

Rjd2

https://twitter.com/mtredden/status/1094014884575092736

Stories of Kloub been a horror boss emerging. If their is any truth in these tales, then she is done, expect more and more people to come forward if they think she is going to ignore it and ride it out.

Going to get brutal the Dems campaign.

breatheme

Klobuchar is in officially now.

rossie1977

New poll just released this morning of 5,000 registered Democrat voters from Morning consultant https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

Showing clear gulf now between top 3 and the rest

Nationally Biden leading



Early voting states ie Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada Biden doing even better



Interesting to see who voters pick as second choice.



Age profile is also fascinating, Sanders overwhelming with a younger demo and the over 65 demo being very unfavourable towards him.

I wonder if Sanders wins how he appeals to the older Democrats specifically. He has the medium given cable news in the States is dominated by that age-group and Trump has used cable news very well to target that section of society.

Rjd2

Bernie seems to trigger a lot of the Clinton loving people on twitter. He has been called Putins useful idiot and the fact he is an old white man is a constant criticism from that base who are obsessed with identity politics. Rather oddly Biden won't have the same criticism.

He would face plenty of internal opposition not just from the Clinton base, but also from those who blame him for paving the way for AOC etc. Lets not forget Bloomberg was considering running if Bernie won the nomination in 2016, a lot of centre Dems loath the man.

I hope he runs though, he has dragged the party to the left and is incredibly popular and authentic unlike Gillibrand for example who would be advocating for slavery if she thought the public wanted it.

Also would be fascinating viewing watching the establishment Dems melt down if he was to run, AOC endorsing him would melt so many people's heads.

Brian?

Honestly, I hope Biden doesn't run. He's too old, as much as I love him.

I think Sherrod Brown would have a really good chance of winning the middle ground against Trump. But politics in the US has become such a populist shouting match, I doubt he has a hope of winning through the primaries.

pixelburp

Looks like the first debates will be split over 2 nights, to accommodate a maximum of 20 candidates. Presumably that glut will get quickly whittled down once the 'serious' candidates present themselves. The conditions for entry are interesting though:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/us/politics/democratic-debates-2020.html

Party officials, anticipating a rush of candidates eager to grab a spot in the nationally televised forums, created a new set of standards that would accommodate a maximum of 20 candidates. To qualify, a candidate must either reach 1 percent in three approved polls or raise at least $65,000 from 200 donors in 20 different states. Each candidate’s slot will be selected by a random drawing.

spacecoyote

Well, its official, Bernie is running again:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-sanders/bernie-sanders-to-seek-u-s-presidency-again-in-2020-idUKKCN1Q819T

He's not going to be quite the outsider this time & will have a couple of candidates a bit closer to his ideology, so will be interesting to see how he fairs.

He does have the advantage of name recognition though.

I wonder would one of the younger up & coming candidates be happy to run under him as a VP on the ticket?

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

That makes it official that Trump will win 2020 if not impeached before then.

Sad Professor

spacecoyote wrote: »

I wonder would one of the younger up & coming candidates be happy to run under him as a VP on the ticket?

I’m sure Tulsi Gabbard would as she endorsed him in 2016. She’s currently being smeared for her criticism of US foreign policy though so won’t get far in her own campaign.

Rjd2

Sad Professor wrote: »

I’m sure Tulsi Gabbard would as she endorsed him in 2016. She’s currently being smeared for her criticism of US foreign policy though so won’t get far in her own campaign.

If Bernie gets the nomination, it will be Tulsi or Warren as VP.

Tulsi has been the most vocal regarding the ****show that is Venezuela while so many of the others have been really meek, Harris especially has been really quiet over it. Unacceptable tbh. :mad:

pixelburp

Welp, that's the liberal vote fragmented right there. The Bernie Bros will return, and the Democrat Purity Tests will eat every tepid intellectual failing from Warren, Harris et al, leaving the conscientious objectors to vote for the 2020 JillSteinalike...

duffysfarm

I had to laugh when i read one of the articles which announced that Bernie was running. It said something along the lines that out of a field of maybe 20 candidates he will be the only straight white male running for the democrats. Just to be clear i am not giving out about some one who is not straight and white but i think that straight and white is underrepresented when it is 1 in 20

qwerty ui op

pixelburp wrote: »

Welp, that's the liberal vote fragmented right there. The Bernie Bros will return, and the Democrat Purity Tests will eat every tepid intellectual failing from Warren, Harris et al, leaving the conscientious objectors to vote for the 2020 JillSteinalike...

I heard Bill Maher on about this the other night. I think it's BS.

It's taken as a given that all the Dem candidates are fine on social issues and to be fair they're all fine so nothing to consider here.

There is no, "Purity test" other than the main stream trying wedge it into debate fox news style, I don't hear anyone else talking about it.

There is only one test! one thing asked of the candidates!
Will they fight for ordinary people or big money interests

Funny how all the confusion is coming from the main stream which happen to be a big money interest.

qwerty ui op

duffysfarm wrote: »

I had to laugh when i read one of the articles which announced that Bernie was running. It said something along the lines that out of a field of maybe 20 candidates he will be the only straight white male running for the democrats. Just to be clear i am not giving out about some one who is not straight and white but i think that straight and white is underrepresented when it is 1 in 20

Bidan

The 2 front runners are straight and white

Joe_ Public

qwerty ui op wrote: »

Bidan

The 2 front runners are straight and white

Beto? Sherrod Brown? That’s at least 4 anyway.

Rjd2

identity politics will be used mostly to smear Bernie rather than Biden and the other white guys, because the establishment loath him.
The resistance@! PUTIN@! DEMOCRACY!!! internet mob are already going hard on him while embracing bores like Gillibrand. :rolleyes:

Tulsi who lets not forget is one of the few calling out this bull**** in Venezuela was a tune up for the Bernie bashing.

pixelburp

qwerty ui op wrote: »

I heard Bill Maher on about this the other night. I think it's BS.

It's taken as a given that all the Dem candidates are fine on social issues and to be fair they're all fine so nothing to consider here.

There is no, "Purity test" other than the main stream trying wedge it into debate fox news style, I don't hear anyone else talking about it.

There is only one test! one thing asked of the candidates!
Will they fight for ordinary people or big money interests

Funny how all the confusion is coming from the main stream which happen to be a big money interest.

I think it can be overestimated, but the purity tests are colouring democrat candidates, and IMO had an effect on the 2016 vote breakdown. Sanders v Clinton became a fight between the old and new, and even now I see and read arguments made for shunning centrist democrats in favour of more left leaning candidates. The ubiquitous AOC election was a good example of this.

The Sanders zealots didn't all move to vote Clinton once she won the candidate election, and while not every vote for Jill Stein was a lost democrat vote, there was still a narrative that couldn't countenance holding its nose and voting for the lesser of two establishment figures (you had celebrities like Susan Sarandon IIRC declaring as much).

It's only going to get worse while the 2 party system forces anyone vaguely left of centre to force themselves into a single party, the rifts will only deepen in my view.

As for Maher, meh, I can't stomach his points of view, too often coming off like a left wing Hannity.

Edit: though I would add that it's unlikely there'll be a candidate as divisive as Clinton to split the vote, so a lot of the above is based off a more extreme rival to Sanders.

GSRNBP

I think a Biden ticket with one of the younger candidates as VP would be an extremely strong ticket: I'd say it'd be Biden/Harris or Biden/O'Rourke with a view to a combo Harris/O'Rourke with whoever was VP as President in 2024.

Itssoeasy

The democrats with these fecking purity tests and wanting to be as pure as the driven snow won't work. To quote former Secretary of State James Baker, "do you want to be ideological pure or do your want to win? "

pixelburp

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The democrats with these fecking purity tests and wanting to be as pure as the driven snow won't work. To quote former Secretary of State James Baker, "do you want to be ideological pure or do your want to win? "

I think it speaks to the widening gap that two parties can no longer fill; you can debate who's to blame - I feel like Trump has enabled these more hardened leftwing politicians - but there's definitely an ideological split occuring in the Democrats.

I can sort of sympathise with those looking at the centrist establishment and feeling antagonistic towards those wedded to the "old way"; after all, no one party can realistically accommodate multiple ideologies. But now is not the time to have a schism, if they're serious about shunting Trump out.

batgoat

pixelburp wrote: »

I think it speaks to the widening gap that two parties can no longer fill; you can debate who's to blame - I feel like Trump has enabled these more hardened leftwing politicians - but there's definitely an ideological split occuring in the Democrats.

I can sort of sympathise with those looking at the centrist establishment and feeling antagonistic towards those wedded to the "old way"; after all, no one party can realistically accommodate multiple ideologies. But now is not the time to have a schism, if they're serious about shunting Trump out.

My view is that a more socialist lean to the Democrats is in the process of happening. But I think it is more likely to occur via the likes of Cortez. So I would say it's fifteen years off and might actually be received well by then. My preference is Harris or Beto.

branie2

I'd like to see a female president being elected next year

Kermit.de.frog

I'd like to see an intelligent president elected next year

branie2

Well, a woman can be intelligent

Kermit.de.frog

From an Irish perspective Biden would be the best choice in my opinion.

rossie1977

batgoat wrote: »

My view is that a more socialist lean to the Democrats is in the process of happening. But I think it is more likely to occur via the likes of Cortez. So I would say it's fifteen years off and might actually be received well by then. My preference is Harris or Beto.

Democrats are only recently moving back towards their progressive platform of the 1960s. Obviously many of top Democrats are still centre right or solid conservative..a shift that began in the early 90s so there might be some pushback from the Pelosi and Schumers while the likes of Manchin will probably switch alliegances to Republican over next 2 years.

But you see more and more candidates in this race, establishment Dems like Booker embracing what 5 years ago in the States would be considered radical progressive policies such as Medicare for all or making college affordable so it's already happening in a big way.

KyussB

With AOC you are seeing the gradual entrance into the political mainstream of economic policies and theory, that are going to cause the biggest upheaval in economic practice in more than 40+ years - she's a supporter of Modern Monetary Theory, a much suppressed heterodox school of economics (part of the Post-Keynesian school), and is deploying it as the primary practical means of fighting climate change, with the Green New Deal.

It's probably still half a decade to a decade out from replacing the current economic mainstream - but when it does reach that critical mass, it's going to have major implications for economic practice, pretty much all over the world. If we're all really lucky, that might even take the form of a global effort at infrastructural/technological redevelopment, to arrest climate change.

One of the very few genuinely interesting changes to happen in the US for a long time. I tuned out from nearly all US politics long ago, in the runup to Trumps election, as the signal-to-noise ratio went into the toilet.

is_that_so

KyussB wrote: »

With AOC you are seeing the gradual entrance into the political mainstream of economic policies and theory, that are going to cause the biggest upheaval in economic practice in more than 40+ years - she's a supporter of Modern Monetary Theory, a much suppressed heterodox school of economics (part of the Post-Keynesian school), and is deploying it as the primary practical means of fighting climate change, with the Green New Deal.

It's probably still half a decade to a decade out from replacing the current economic mainstream - but when it does reach that critical mass, it's going to have major implications for economic practice, pretty much all over the world. If we're all really lucky, that might even take the form of a global effort at infrastructural/technological redevelopment, to arrest climate change.

One of the very few genuinely interesting changes to happen in the US for a long time. I tuned out from nearly all US politics long ago, in the runup to Trumps election, as the signal-to-noise ratio went into the toilet.

MMT has its flaws and in some respects is a big boon for those who want to articulate such views. They like their counterparts on the right want to restrict the views of the world to their vision and who they can find to blame for it not happening.
I like AOC, her energy and sense of humour in particular but she will need to find somewhere nearer the centre over time.

qwerty ui op

breatheme wrote: »

Klobuchar is in officially now.

Not my cup of tea, but i'd credit her for coming out and saying what she's about, fairly clearly (clearer than I expected anyway). This is a good thing for the process as there is many candidates and many policy positions.

First - she is a moderate democrat

Not that she speaks for all the moderates but It'll be interesting to see how other more popular "moderates" differ from where she's at.

Her whole approach is about, pragmatism and bipartisan cooperation and bridging the divide. That all sounds nice and sounded even better 10 years ago but what has she got that Obama/Bidan didn't have, how will she now suceed where everyone else has failed. Where talking about Mitch Mcconnell and the GOP here. They'll laugh their ass off at any Dem who comes looking for any kinda change, their doners/bosses didn't spend millions buying elections only for Mitch to just give it away.

Meanwhile Sanders, Warren etc are saying we're gonna fight fight fight... as not an inch will be given unless you fight and win.

So for a start you have two very contrasting views here between Moderates and progressives.

It's often said how progressive/more left wing, lack realistic thinking and go for pie in the sky stuff that won't happen. Here I think the opposite is the case the progressives are realistic and the moderates are going for pie in the sky.

Also, there seems to be this view that a Moderate Dem will be more appealing to Independents, whereas in 2016 it was Bernie who was favoured with independents. I don't have strong views either way right now but I need fairly strong evidence in order to believe that a Moderate is more attractive to an Independent.

Larbre34

For my money Biden - Harris is the winning combo.

JPB has unmatched experience and leadership markers to take the big chair. He has run with the ball on serious White House policy issues for Obama and he is both a safe pair of hands and a moderate with feet in both the working class and Beltway circles. Yes he is only a year younger than Bernie but he comes across far younger and more pragmatic and frankly less scary to the middle.

Harris is younger, but not too young, she has serious experience as California AG and the Senate, and has the advantage over the likes of Elizabeth Warren who has wound more people up over a longer time. She is also at pains today to point out that she is not a 'democratic socialist'

I think whatever the ticket order, Harris will be on it unless she trips up majorly in some way between now and then. Of those not yet declared I think only Michael Bloomberg or Eric Holder have to potential to upset the current runners.

That said, I'd almost love Trump to remain in power for he and Bloomberg to go toe to toe.

eagle eye

Are you saying winning the Dems nomination because Biden won't beat Trump.
You need someone younger, somebody who at least sounds sharp and intelligent.

rossie1977

I think Harris' best bet is becoming majority leader in Senate in either 2020-22. She is very establishment Democrat, yes she doesn't have baggage but really not sure how good of an idea it is to run as a centist in this campaign when you know Trump will again go full on faux populist and AOC has become most talked about politican in the country within one month because of her progressive ideology

Harris has one thing going for her and it's that the media love her.. however that will be of little use against Trump as they are obsessed with him and Trump's their meal ticket not Harris

qwerty ui op

This stage of the process is a chance to pick the person you believe is best suited to lead the country taking into account international affairs.

Winning the GE is the next stage.
Picking someone the win the GE now, is daft. You turn away or don't even consider the person you believe to be best suited too run the country in the hope that someone will just beat Trump/Gop just so you can say we've won!
If you think you like this, I some bad news for you, you've already lost!

Larbre34 wrote: »

Yes he is only a year younger than Bernie but he comes across far younger and more pragmatic and frankly less scary to the middle. .

How do you know this?

Larbre34 wrote: »

That said, I'd almost love Trump to remain in power for he and Bloomberg to go toe to toe.

I'd be hoping everyone goes for the person they believe is best to run the counrty and when it comes to entertainment they try netflix or whatever

Larbre34

I don't 'know' it at all, its my perception and my informed opinion from friends and family in different parts of the U.S., Sanders is as far left as it gets in mainstream representative politics and that independent socialist tag sticks and is off putting to those who aren't young and very liberal.

Choosing their president for his politics would certainly be a step up from where they are now.

qwerty ui op

eagle eye wrote: »

Are you saying winning the Dems nomination because Biden won't beat Trump.
You need someone younger, somebody who at least sounds sharp and intelligent.

Maybe, but you can't guarantee that nor can anyone guarantee anything so it madness to pick based on some speculation, same applies to speculating x will do well in rust belt etc you just don't know.

You go for who you think it best to lead and have a little faith in your fellow citizens.

rossie1977

Larbre34 wrote: »

I don't 'know' it at all, its my perception and my informed opinion from friends and family in different parts of the U.S., Sanders is as far left as it gets in mainstream representative politics and that independent socialist tag sticks and is off putting to those who aren't young and very liberal.

Choosing their president for his politics would certainly be a step up from where they are now.

His policies have become more and more mainstream in the US since 2016 and he is most popular politician in the country if we are talking approval rating.

Sanders also has evidence to show he is steadfast in his commitment. There are videos of him from 30+ years ago saying the same stuff he says today. He has never sold out his ideologies and shoots straight. He was one of the few that was against the Iraq war (Trump can try to claim that but it's not true).

As you say attracting older people will be an issue, also attracting minorities as his base is mostly 18-49 white voters. As I stated previously probably only a handful of states up for grabs in 2020 anyway and Sanders can win Maine district, NH, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Not many other Dems right now in the race I would be confident saying they could win all of them.

Of course it might be a case that Sanders is viewed like Ron Paul second time he runs and new bright shiny toy gets all the press...have to wait and see.

ricero

Sanders is a weak and an old delusional liberal. I look forward to witnessing the Donald crush him in 2020.

KyussB

is_that_so wrote: »

MMT has its flaws and in some respects is a big boon for those who want to articulate such views. They like their counterparts on the right want to restrict the views of the world to their vision and who they can find to blame for it not happening.
I like AOC, her energy and sense of humour in particular but she will need to find somewhere nearer the centre over time.

Yet nobody seems able to articulate its supposed flaws, without just straw-manning it - i.e. arguing against something it is not. MMT is just as capable of being deployed for right-wing causes, as it is for left-wing - it's effectively bipartisan.

AOC isn't there to go for status-quo-supporting i.e. centrist politics - she's there to shift the status quo, and completely upend the present economic order.

Rjd2

Tulsi was on the view today, attacked by war monger Mc Cain and similarly unlikable Navarro on having a moderate foreign policy.


I thought she handled it really well, it means nothing sadly, but her stance on Venezuela is easily the most consistent and most powerful compared to others who have been near silent.

I hope she can last a while at least in the campaign.